Agenda item

(To receive a report from Bev Finnegan, Programme Manager – Community Engagement, which invites the Committee to consider a pre-decision scrutiny item on Citizens Advice Lincolnshire which is due to be considered by the Executive Councillor for NHS Liaison and Community Engagement between 16 March and 23 March 2018)

The Executive Councillor for NHS Liaison and Community Engagement introduced a report which outlined proposed changes to the funding provided to the Citizens Advice Service in Lincolnshire.  The Committee was informed that the Council believed that Citizens Advice was a very important volunteer organisation and had considered it could continue to support it. 

It was proposed to allocate a single year amount of £278,000 to continue to fund Citizen Advice Lincolnshire for 'core services' for 2018/19 with a further one off £53,000 to enable the provision of advice and support in areas around welfare reform and Universal Credit.

Members were advised that Citizens Advice activity had historically been funded through a grant aid agreement.  A review of the service had been carried out and it was proposed to continue to provide funding for the core service and income maximisation support.  Other advice which was available in the community was also looked at, and it was discovered that there was a wide range of advice available within communities, with some of that being specialised.

The Committee was provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report and some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

·         One member commented that they had been a representative for South Kesteven District Council on the Citizens Advice and the organisation did an amazing amount of work.  He congratulated the officers and executive member for their honesty in the report, and suggested that some background information

·         It was noted that Citizens Advice did receive funding from a wide range of other sources such as district councils, the National Lottery and Age UK.

·         It was confirmed that the proposed reduction in funding would be approximately £300,000, however, an additional £53,000 would be provided to meet the reform agenda.

·         It was commented that for every £1 invested, the local community would benefit by £18.  Therefore it was believed that local communities would lose out.  However, it was noted that this investment would not be stopped by the proposed reductions in funding from the County Council, as the funding would continue, but it would be coming from other organisations.

·         It was noted that there were also other organisations which could provide the same advice that the County Council was funding.  There were other organisations also carrying out the same piece of work.

·         Councillor R B Parker, who was not a member of the Committee was permitted to speak by the Chairman, reported that a provider impact assessment completed by the CAB had revealed some interesting points.  Officers acknowledged that the Equality Impact Assessment had recognised that there would be impacts on particular vulnerable groups.

·         Councillor Parker reported that there were two aspects in which people could be impacted negatively by this reduction, directly for people who would no longer receive the services provided and also those seeking help to stay in their own homes.  It was noted that it was easy to recruit the trained volunteers, but when the cases became more complex they would be passed to the trained legal officers, and it was thought that the proposed funding reduction could lead to a loss of expert knowledge, as there was the potential for up to nine people to lose their jobs.  It was also commented that in relation to people who were seeking help from CAB to stay in their own homes instead of going into residential care, there could be significant savings for the County Council if these people were able to retain their independence.  It was suggested that if only 11 people were diverted away from residential care, this would save the council money.

·         It was noted that the County Council had a contract with an organisation called P3 which provided three housing related services, and one of the main tasks within the contract was to provide a countywide floating support service to all those who were vulnerable or at risk of losing their tenancies.  It was also noted that all staff would be trained with knowledge of maximising benefits.

·         It was noted that the work of Age UK, National Money Advice Service, Home Improvement Agency etc. had been reviewed which all work at keeping people as independent as possible.  It was also noted that these organisations looked at the financial aspect as well as the appropriate level of welfare and benefits for a person.

·         It was commented that the level of trust people had for the CAB was not comparable to any other organisation.

·         It was suggested that if the fairer funding campaign was successful and the funding cuts were stopped, this should be the first service where funding should be restored to.

·         It was queried whether the other organisations mentioned had the spare capacity to take on the additional work which the CAB would not be able to deal with due to the proposed funding cuts. 

·         It was commented that the CAB was a vital service of many people, not just the vulnerable, and it was understood that the core services would be maintained.  It was confirmed that people approaching Citizen's Advice would be signposted to other organisations where necessary, but a resident had a choice of which organisation they wanted to go to.

·         One member commented that they understood the reasons why this decision had to be made reluctantly, and they looked forward to the day when the service could be restored.

(NOTE: Councillor M A Whittington wished it to be noted that he would not take part in the vote on this item due to his involvement in the budget setting process as the Executive Support Councillor for Finance)

RESOLVED

That the Public Protection and Communities Scrutiny Committee support the recommendations to the Executive Councillor as set out in the report.